Profile
Search
Register
Log in
#OCCUPYWALLSTREET
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
english bob



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 840
Location: england, uk
 Reply with quote  

xxdr. mad69xx wrote:
http://youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Qrx6DDgTH_w

*MOD NOTE*
You might want to try this link again. The one you posted doesn't lead to a video.

that'll be:

Post Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8423
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

A speech from Jimmy Reid, Scotland's leading socialist advocate. He made it in 1972, and there are some obvious elements that only a Scottish person would understand, but by and large I think it still holds true today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/still-irresistible-a-workingclass-heros-finest-speech-2051285.html
Post Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Limbs



Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 793
 Reply with quote  

So what politician is gonna align themselves with Occupy? And will the occupiers agree on what they should do about political elections? Cuz those aren't going away.
Post Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2540
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

moved....
Post Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Ebert weighs in on OWS movement:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/_where_i_stand_on_the_occupy_m.html


Quote:

Roger Ebert's Journal
Where I stand on the Occupy movement
By Roger Ebert on December 7, 2011 12:07 AM | No Comments

slope.jpgI commissioned this chart to make my position clear. I've avoided the subject until now because, while I instinctively felt I must be in favor of it the Occupiers, I wasn't sure what the movement stood for. I support most populist uprisings on matter of principle, and would perhaps even support the Tea Party were it not demonstrating in favor of the very things that are wrong.

I believe the Occupiers are opposed to the lawless and destructive greed in the financial industry, and the unhealthy spread in this country between the rich and the rest. It is sickening to see how the rich and their pawns oppose desperately-needed Universal Health Care, and sad to see the Tea Party fall in line with their shadow masters to oppose something most of them will someday need.


I have also felt despair at the way financial instruments were created and manipulated to deliberately defraud the ordinary people in this country. At how home buyers were peddled mortgages they couldn't afford, and civilian investors were sold worthless "securities" based on those bad mortgages. Wall Street felt no shame in backing paper that was intended o fail, and selling it to customers who trusted them. This is clear and documented. It is theft and fraud on a staggering scale.

As we head into another election year, the Republicans actually oppose efforts at financial regulation and reform. They are against government measures that would introduce transparency and accountability into the markets. The GOP is owned by Wall Street. My litany could go on forever. Democrats try to punish the wrongdoers, Republicans shelter them, and the House GOP majority stonewalls. But you know that. And if the Occupy Movement stirs up awareness about it, I'm in favor of it.

My hesitation all along has come with uneasiness about the Occupy tactics. The idea of physically occupying public spaces--parks, plazas, malls and so on--is a bad strategy. The notion of pitching tents, running kitchens and maintaining libraries on a quasi-permanent basis would have Saul Alinsky tearing his hair out. If you set out to do something that will obviously not work, you're setting yourself up for inevitable failure. Very few people are mentally or constitutionally able to live in a tent for long, especially with the approach of winter. Young and strong people can. Soldiers do. But the Occupy movement is intended to be populist, and a great many ordinary people have children, families and income requirements that make it inconvenient to camp out.


bonuscapital.jpeg

It was a different matter during the Great Depression, when tent cities named Hoovervilles sprang up on the National Mall and elsewhere. Their inhabitants were actually unemployed and homeless men and women who were forced to such extremes. A few of the Occupiers fit that description. I believe most do not.

The beauty of the Tea Party is that it's a moveable feast. It doesn't require a lasting presence in Manhattan, Portland or Denver. It can gather, demonstrate, and disperse. Reports from Tea Party rallies last year indicated in some cases the very same people were moving themselves or being bused from one demonstration to another. The rallies were a recruiting device. They were fun. Occupying looks more like work that requires a radical change in lifestyle.

The fact is that Occupiers should belong to no political wing. Republicans as well as Democrats should be fed up with the rot in our financial system. It should be apparent to them that the Republican Party is the legislative wing of Wall Street theft. Populists are called socialists, but then "socialism" is always the term aimed at financial reformers. It would be more accurate to call them Law Enforcers, or Fair Shakers. Successful as it has been, the Occupy Movement should be much larger are encompass more different kinds of people. By its radical tactics, it has seemed exclusionary. Everyone should feel invited to join.

Let me give an example of its potential . A few weeks ago I read this in an op-ed column:

"How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

"The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad...accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.


Hoovervile.jpeg


"Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

"The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests."

End of quote. I agree with every word. The full column appeared on the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 18, 2011, and it was written by Sarah Palin. In a way that doesn't surprise me. I think Palin may instinctively be a populist when she's free of handlers, and although she toed the Republican line in 2008, she's not following it here. Those words would not inspire a standing ovation at a Republican National Convention.

A clear majority of Americans should be in sympathy with the Occupy Movement. That they are not is a tribute to an effective right wing propaganda machine given voice by Fox News, radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh, and financed by the Koch brothers among many others. The machine's audience is to oppose its own self-interest and support the interests of the rich.

"We are the 99 percent," say the Occupiers. Yes, but the ring wing propagandists say the rich are the engine driving the creation of wealth. While it is true that they create a great deal of wealth for themselves, in the current American financial universe they seem to be sucking that wealth from the pockets of the middle class, the working class and the poor.

There was a time in the not very distant American past when it was easier to support a family and buy a home. Now many college graduates find themselves moving back in with their parents. They're living off prosperity that was built up when the economy wasn't stacked against them.

President Obama went to Kansas on Tuesday to make the kind of speech I've been waiting and hoping for. It was billed as sort of a keynote for his campaign. He said, "This country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share and when everyone plays by the same rules." Isn't that true? Does everyone get a fair shot? When the Republicans try to exempt the financial industry from regulation, is that playing by the same rules?



Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11287
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  


Quote:




Duh, nothing's every been accomplished without having electoral politics as its main goal. Remember the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or as I like to call it, the time Rosa Parks was elected governor of Alabama.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

So I think we're back to the question that Limbs posed, who does Occupy align with, or vice versa? Maybe sole can tell us? Are we voting for dogs this year?
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

I think they will probably side with the candidate that is more likely to tax the rich and regulate banks/corporations. Maybe the candidate with a jobs plan.

Or maybe they are just hippies and write in Bob Marley.

Did these lazy hipsters ever say what their goal even was? Have they shaved yet? This thing is never gonna take off.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

I love you guys.

edit: In all seriousness (not that I wasn't serious about the love thing), does OWS have any boycotts planned? I heard they occupied a foreclosed home, but I'm not sure of the impact of that...
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8423
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

I had a similar response to the cartoon. Successfully electing a candidate outside the two-party system, especially once that truly has the interests of the people in mind, is a white whale. Even if someone representing the Green Party, say, became a senator or representative they we should be overwhelmed by the rest of Congress. Having proper representation in the legislature would be ideal, but most change has been enacted by protests, occupations, and marches. The cartoon is a reductive display of naivete.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  



WWRPD?

(what would Rosa Parks do?)
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

voting and direct action are not mutually exclusive. you can vote for the lesser of two evils while protesting the entire system.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 368
 Reply with quote  

I still think #OWS should make the campaign finance constitutional amendment the goal they rally behind.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8423
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
voting and direct action are not mutually exclusive. you can vote for the lesser of two evils while protesting the entire system.


Agreed. But voting for the lesser of two evils is like opting to kill yourself with a knife over a gun. Democracy shouldn't be reduced to choosing who will fuck things up less.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
crash wrote:
voting and direct action are not mutually exclusive. you can vote for the lesser of two evils while protesting the entire system.


Agreed. But voting for the lesser of two evils is like opting to kill yourself with a knife over a gun. Democracy shouldn't be reduced to choosing who will fuck things up less.

yeah, the system is fucked. i just don't think that there's enough momentum for an effective boycott. for a boycott to work you need enough people to abstain from voting to seriously damage the legitimacy of the government. as it stands, if the OWS supporters boycotted it would just help the Republicans.

a lot of liberal egyptians boycotted the most recent elections because they were unhappy with how the SCAF set it up (with good reason). the problem is, most egyptians didn't agree with them and came out to vote in record numbers. the result? the muslim brotherhood and salafists did far better than anyone expected.
Post Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 41, 42, 43  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:35 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon